scholarly journals Comparison of efficacy of topical alcaftadine (0.25%) versus olopatadine (0.1%) in allergic conjunctivitis

2022 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 630-633
Author(s):  
Kiran Kumar L ◽  
M S Smitha Gowda
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Outcome Variable ◽  
Eye Drops ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Significant Efficacy ◽  
Group B ◽  
Olopatadine Hydrochloride

The most common atopic ocular condition in clinical practice is allergic conjunctivitis. One of the preferred treatment options for allergic Conjunctivitis is anti histamines eye drops. The study purpose is to compare the clinical efficacy between topical alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% in allergic conjunctivitis patients.A prospective, randomized, open label, parallel group, comparative study was conducted on 60 Patients with bilateral allergic conjunctivitis (30 in each group) after taking an informed written consentand was evaluated from May 2018 to November 2018. Patients were randomized into 2 groups of 30 each, group A received topical Alcaftadine 0.25% twice daily and patients in Group B received topical olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% twice daily for 2 weeks. The patients were evaluated on first visit (baseline) followed by 7 and 14 day after starting the treatment. At each visit signs and symptoms were evaluated and rated using a scale from 0-3(0-Absent, 1- mild, 2 moderate and 3- severe). The change from baseline in the mean scores of itching, hyperemia, photophobia and tearing on day 14 is the primary outcome variable.: The signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis were reduced by 2 weeks from baseline after using both the drugs. Relative significant efficacy was achieved in alcaftadine group for Itching, hyperemia and photophobia, but not for tearing (p=0.3). When compared to 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride, 0.25% alcaftadine is more effective in reducing the symptoms of all types of allergic conjunctivitis except those mentioned in exclusion criteria.

scholarly journals A prospective study of efficacy and safety of olopatadine versus azelastine in allergic conjunctivitis at a tertiary care hospital

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (8) ◽  
pp. 1948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayanthi C. R. ◽  
Nanthini R. ◽  
. Vijayalakshmi
Keyword(s):  
Mast Cell ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Eye Drops ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
H1 Receptor ◽  
Olopatadine Hydrochloride

Background: Allergic conjunctivitis, an ocular surface inflammatory disease with significant social and economic impact affects approximately 25% of the general population. H1 receptor blockers, mast cell stabilizers and drugs that block cytokine and prostaglandin formation form the treatment armamentarium. Olopatadine hydrochloride and Azelastine hydrochloride are dual-acting selective H1 receptor antagonist with mast-cell stabilizing property. This study was undertaken to assess the efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% and Azelastine hydrochloride 0.05% in allergic conjunctivitis amongst Indians.Methods: After obtaining Institutional Ethics Committee approval and written informed consent, 120 patients diagnosed with allergic conjunctivitis fulfilling the inclusion/exclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. Study was done from April 2014 to June 2015 at Minto eye hospital. Study subjects were treated with olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% and Azelastine hydrochloride 0.05% eye drops BD for 15 days. Ocular symptoms, instead of and signs and adverse events, if any were recorded on the day 8 and day 15 follow up visits.Results: At the end of the study period, the reduction in the ocular itching score from baseline was higher in the olopatadine group compared to the azelastine group (p<0.002). Similarly, the scores of ocular congestion (p<0.008), foreign body sensation (p<0.009), tearing (p<0.001), erythema (p<0.002) and chemosis (p<0.015) also showed larger reduction in the olopatadine treated patients. The common adverse events encountered in both the groups were stinging after instillation, burning, bitter taste and headache.Conclusions: In allergic conjunctivitis, both olopatadine and azelastine were found to be effective in relieving ocular signs and symptoms, but olopatadine was found to be superior in terms of efficacy, safety and tolerability with minimal side effects.

scholarly journals Management of Vataja abhishyanda (Allergic conjunctivitis) with Gutika anjana and Punarnavadi eye drops: A comparative clinical study

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 842-849
Author(s):  
Shashi Prakash Gupta ◽  
Vaghela D B
Keyword(s):  
Marked Improvement ◽  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Complete Relief ◽  
Eye Drops ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Body Sensation ◽  
Comparative Clinical Study ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Background: Vataja Abhishyanda is characterized by Toda (Pricking pain), Sangharsha (foreign body sensation), Achchasruta (watery discharge), Alpa Shopha (mild chemosis), Vishushka Bhava (feeling of dryness), Parushya (roughness) etc which are very similar to the most of signs and symptoms of the Allergic Conjunctivitis. It is one of the most common type of eye allergy and is widely experienced by global population. Aims and Objective: . To evaluate and compare the efficacy of Punarnavadi eye drops and Gutika Anjana in the management of Vataja Abhishyanda(Allergic conjunctivitis). Materials and methods: Total 104 patients diagnosed with symptoms and signs of Vataja Abhishyanda were selected from the outpatient department of Shalakya tantra. The selected patients were assigned randomly into two groups, group A (Punarnavadi eye drop) having 51 and group B (Gutika Anjana) having 50 patients. Duration of treatment was 8weeks with follow up for one month after the trial. Result: In Group A, 96.08% got complete relief after the completion of treatment, 03.92% got marked improvement. In Group B, 98% got complete relief after the completion of treatment, 2% got marked improvement. Conclusion: Gutika Anjana shows better relief in all sign and symptoms on the basis of percentage. The reason may be Anjana has maximum absorption due to more contact of time with the tissue which is responsible for better bioavailability.

scholarly journals A comparison of the efficacy of Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and Sodium Chromoglycate ophthalmic solution in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis

1970 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-139
Author(s):  
AIMA Uddin ◽  
GM Faruque ◽  
AQMO Sharif
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Ophthalmic Solution ◽  
Eye Drops ◽  
Blinded Study ◽  
Group A ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Group B ◽  
Double Blinded ◽  
Symptoms And Signs ◽  
Olopatadine Hydrochloride

Aim: To find out an effective drug for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis and to compare the efficacy of Sodium chromoglycate ophthalmic solution and Olopatadine Hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. Materials and methods: This randomized double blinded study was conducted in National Institute of Ophthalmology and Hospital, Sher-E-BangIa Nagar, Dhaka, from January, 2005 to May, 2009. 100 Patients with ocular allergies attending OPD of NIO&H were included. Each of the patient was randomly included in either of the following two groups by simple lottery method; Group A: 50 Patients receiving olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% eye drops and Group B: 50 Patients receiving sodium chromoglycate 2% eye drops. Itching score, Redness score, Discharge score, Evaluator's score - baseline and after 21 days of treatment with olopatadine and sodium chromoglycate 2% ophthalmic solution were evaluated following Aguilar (2000). For the relieving of symptoms and signs olopatadine was found to be superior over sodium chromoglycate 2% but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: This clinical study concludes that the relieving of symptoms and signs olopatadine was found to be superior over sodium chromoglycate 2% but the difference was not statistically significant. DOI: 10.3329/jdmc.v18i2.6274 J Dhaka Med Coll. 2009; 18(2) : 136-139

Comparison of Topical 0.05% Levocabastine and 0.1% Lodoxamide in Patients with Allergic Conjunctivitis

1998 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 207-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Richard ◽  
C. Trinquand ◽  
E. Bloch-Michel ◽  
F. Favennec ◽  
L. Helleboid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Ophthalmic Solution ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Eyelid Edema ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Allergy Symptom

Purpose The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of 0.05% levocabastine eyedrops (H1 receptor blocker given BID + vehicle BID) compared with 0.1% lodoxamide ophthalmic solution (mast-cell stabilizer instilled QID) in reducing ocular signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Methods A randomized, double-masked, parallel-group study was conducted in seven centres in France, in which 93 patients suffering from seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis were randomly allocated to either 0.05% levocabastine (n = 47) or 0.1% lodoxamide (n = 46) in both eyes for a 14-day period. Efficacy was evaluated by subjective (prickling, burning, photophobia, itching) and objective (redness, chemosis, eyelid edema, tearing) sign scores at visits on days 7 and 14, and from data noted daily by the patient in a self-evaluation form. Safety was assessed as tolerance upon instillation and adverse event reports. Results The ocular allergy symptom and sign scores were comparable in the two treatment groups at baseline. With time, statistically and clinically significant reductions (p < 0.001) from baseline were observed for the subjective and objective scores, with no difference between the treatment groups. After the first instillation, signs were alleviated more rapidly in levocabastine-treated patients than in the lodoxamide group (p < 0.001). Overall assessments by the patient and investigator were similar in both groups. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions Levocabastine ophthalmic suspension 0.05% (BID) appears to be as effective and safe as lodoxamide 0.1% (QID) in the management of allergic conjunctivitis.

scholarly journals The effectiveness of olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops for allergic conjunctivitis

Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (7) ◽  
pp. e18618
Author(s):  
Yingxin Zi ◽  
Yu Deng ◽  
Meiqi Ji ◽  
Yali Qin ◽  
Luqi Nong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Eye Drops ◽  
Olopatadine Hydrochloride

scholarly journals A comparative prospective open label randomized controlled 8 week study in patients of depression treated with vilazodone and sertraline

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 643
Author(s):  
Nirmal Arya ◽  
Anuradha Nischal ◽  
Anil Nischal ◽  
Manu Agarwal
Keyword(s):  
Side Effect ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Sexual Experience ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Group A ◽  
Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale ◽  
Group B

Background: Depression is a mood disorder treated with various antidepressant such as SSRIs due to lesser toxicity and improved safety profile.Methods: This was an eight week randomised active controlled parallel group study. 54 patients were allocated in two group. Group A received vilazodone while group B received sertraline. Assessment done at baseline, 2, 4 and 8 weeks on the basis of clinical efficacy, sexual dysfunction, side effects and weight gain using Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Arizona Sexual Experience Scale (ASEX) and UKU Side Effect Rating Scale.Results: HAM-D score of group A was 18.78±1.78 and 7.67±1.66 while in group B was 19.04±2.12 and 8.15±1.77 at baseline and 8 weeks respectively. HAM-A score of group A was 15.44±1.50 and 6.63±1.39 while in group B was 15.26±1.83 and 7.07±1.14 at baseline and 8 weeks. ASEX total score of group A was 15.63±1.28 and 14.63±1.33 while group B was 15.52±1.37 and 16.41±1.12 at baseline and 8 weeks. ASEX desire score of group A was 9.63±0.93 and 8.67±0.88 while of group B was 9.59±0.93 and 10.07±0.92 at baseline and 8 weeks. UKU side effect rating at 2 and 8 weeks of group A was 0.22±0.42, 1.04±0.76 while in group B was 0.37±0.49, 1.89±0.85.Conclusions: Vilazodone and Sertraline are equally efficacious in treatment of depression and associated anxiety. When side effect profile were compared Vilazodone is found superior to Sertraline

scholarly journals MANAGEMENT OF ASRIGDARA WITH KUTAJASHTAKA AVALEHA AND YASHTIMADHU GHRITA MATRA BASTI - AN OPEN LABEL, DOUBLE ARM, RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 4701-4709
Author(s):  
Stuti Sharma ◽  
Meenakshi Pandey
Keyword(s):  
Medical Therapy ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Reproductive Age ◽  
New Delhi ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Rectal Route ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Introduction: The word Asrigdara explains about prolonged, cyclic or acyclic excessive menstrual bleed-ing in Ayurveda. 9-14% of women in their reproductive age lose 80 ml of blood in each cycle. It is the most common cause of Anemia. Traditionally, Heavy Uterine Bleeding is managed with medical therapy and surgical intervention with associated side effects. But due to limitation of medical therapy as well as surgical interventions, it becomes the necessity of time to find out a permanent, easy, effective and less side effect producing care which can be easily administered and accepted by the patient. Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of Kutajashtaka Avaleha orally and combination of Kutajashtaka Avaleha and Yashtimadhu Ghrita matra basti in combating the signs and symptoms of Asrigdara. Materials and Methods: 56 patients were selected from the Stri Roga and Prasuti Tantra OPD, All India Institute of Ayur-veda, New Delhi and randomly divided into 2 groups. Group A was administered with Kutajashtaka Ava-leha orally regularly for the period of 3 months with the doses of 5gm BD after meal with water, while in Group B, Combination of Yashtimadhu Ghrita Matra Basti (60 ml for 7 days in 3 consecutive cycles after meal through rectal route after 7th day of menses) for 3 months and Kutajashtaka Avaleha was given and the follow up period of 1 month without medication was same for both the groups. Results: Kutajashtaka Avaleha orally alone and Combination of Yashtimadhu Ghrita Matra Basti & Kutajashtaka Avaleha oral both gave statistically highly Significant results (P<0.001) but with better results when the treatment was combined and Markedly Improved (51-75% relief) the signs and symptoms. Conclusion: Combination of Yashtimadhu Ghrita Matra Basti & Kutajashtaka Avaleha oral gave more statistically significant results than Kutajashtaka Avaleha orally alone. No adverse effects were reported during the entire trial period.

scholarly journals A study on the Therapeutic Efficacy of Olopatadine Hydrochloride in the Management of Allergic Conjunctivitis

1970 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Md Abu Nayeem Chowdhury ◽  
AKM Mosharrof Hossain ◽  
MA Hashem Chowdhury ◽  
Shakhawat Hossain Chowdhury
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Ophthalmic Solution ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
College Hospital ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Department Of Ophthalmology ◽  
Drug Adverse Effects ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Medicine Today ◽  
Olopatadine Hydrochloride

A prospective interventional study was conducted to see the efficacy and safety of a ophthalmic preparation olopatadine hydrochloride (0.1%) on 40 allergic conjunctivitis patients attended the out-patient department of Ophthalmology, Sylhet M.A.G. Osmani Medical College Hospital. One drop of ophthalmic solution was administered 12 hourly in each eye for 2 weeks. Scoring of hyperaemia, itching, tearing, and photophobia were estimated before and 2 weeks after administration of the drug. After 30 min. & 2 weeks of administration of drug adverse effects were assessed if there was any. The mean scores of hyperaemia, tearing, itching and photophobia were reduced after 2 weeks of treatment. The scores of hyperaemia, itching, tearing, photophobia were found to be lower compared to Day 0. This change was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Olopatadine appeared to reduce ocular signs and symptoms in Allergic conjunctivitis . Key words: Olopatadine hydrochloride; Allergic conjunctivitis; Hyperaemia; Tearing; Itching; Photophobia. DOI: 10.3329/medtoday.v22i1.5599 Medicine Today Vol.22(1) 2010. 15-19

scholarly journals A randomized open label parallel group study comparing the safety, effectiveness and adherence between 2% fusidic acid cream versus 1% retapamulin ointment in children with impetigo

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 446
Author(s):  
Jeevimani Venkata Subba Reddy ◽  
Vijaya Mohan Rao ◽  
Buchineni Madhavulu ◽  
B. L. Kudagi ◽  
Pathapati Rama Mohan
Keyword(s):  
Fusidic Acid ◽  
Skin Infection ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Severity Of Disease ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Adults And Children

Background: Impetigo is a contagious bacterial skin infection that affects both adults and children. Topical antibacterials such as mupirocin and fusidic acid are the most commonly used in both primary and secondary impetigo. Clinical trials have shown high efficacy of retapamulin in the treatment of secondary impetigo. However, its use in primary impetigo is limited. To this purpose, we compared the safety, efficacy and adherence to treatment of fusidic acid with retapamulin in primary impetigo.Methods: A total of 50 patients with a clinical diagnosis of primary impetigo, between 2-12 years of age, having <10 lesions, 3/5 signs and symptoms, skin infection rating score ≥4 and pus score ≥ one were involved. Patients who were having secondary impetigo leions were excluded.  Twenty-five patients received 2% fusidic acid cream three times a day, and the remaining 25 patients received 1% retapamulin ointment two times a day for seven days. Skin Infection Rating Scale (SIRS) was used to assess the severity of disease at baseline and end of treatment. Clinical success was considered when SIRS score of zero each for pus, crust and pain and 0/1 each for erythema and itching. Clinical failure is a SIRS score of ≥1 for pus.Results: Baseline disease characteristics such as a number of lesions, the severity of disease (SIRS) and pus scores were statistically similar between the two groups. The clinical improvement observed with both fusidic acid and Retapamulin (20/25, 80%) and (21/25, 84%) treatments was not statistically different (p>0.05). Both drugs were well tolerated.Conclusions: Both fusidic and retapamulin showed similar clinical success in patients with primary impetigo. Since fusidic acid has anti-inflammatory property and its treatment is cost-effective, it can be considered as first-line treatment and retapamulin in fusidic acid-resistant impetigo.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document